Saturday, June 14, 2008

Bikescape goes to a community meeting of the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority as the city solicits public input about the stalled bike plan. We encountered vociferous opposition from parents at three schools on Broadway who feel they must drive their kids to school each day. This begs the question: Why are double parkers considered "stakeholders" and why are their dangerous and illegal actions considered a "reality we must deal with" while all the while demanding harsher enforcement for "scofflaw bicyclists."

1 comment:

Erik
said...

Thanks for the post -- it gives a good idea of the standard arguments you hear for and against bike/ped initiatives in these open forums.

On the greater topic of road reclamation, one issue I'm curious about as an advocate is highway theory. There are several examples of highway removals that have successfully created public land without increasing traffic (as seems to be the case in SF). I wonder if there is theory that elucidates which types of highways are good candidates to being reclaimed -- and also which are not?

I think that this information would be useful when auto-centric people lob bombs like 'bike advocates want to destroy all highways.' The answer to that can paint biking in a strategic light: there are highways that cannot be feasibly removed -- but those that can will benefit us all. It's great when cycling advocates can frame the argument in the context of livability. This podcast has a good focus on that approach.